LexHITKARINI SABHA, JABALPUR versus THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF JABALPUR & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B c D E F 493 IUTKARINI SABB~, JABALPUR - v. THE CORPORA.TION OF THE CITY OF JABALPUR & C>THERS May 3, 1972 [K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J Land Acqu@ion Act IS9A--Apportlonmen~ of compensatiqn- ,. Unauthorised 'lease by M uniclpal Corporation to local Col!eg<-'Ler.ire deed containrng renewal clause-Since lease is ineffectiµe renewal clause cannot he taken into consideratio~ for purpose of apportionment-Quan- tum of compe>!Jation-This Court will not interfere when lower couri• have taken all factors into consideration. The Municipal Corporation of Jabalpur pu'rporated to grant a leave of certain land to the appellant Sabha. According to the document the period cf kasc was 30 years. The appellant was entitled on the expiry_ of tl>o lt,,,;c to have the same renewed on such terms and conditions as might be agreed between the parties. The appellant made a cl)llege hostel on the aforesaid land and had also used the attache<I groomd as playground for students. A portion of the said lapd was sought to be acquired by the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for constructing the Home Science College. The Collector of JabbQlpur by his award dated July 18, 1955 dealt with the claims filed by the appellant and the Municipal Corporation and as"""""d the compen.;ation at As. -/8/- per sq. ft. Apportionment was mare between the appellant and the Corporation on the footing that the at)pellant was not merely a tenant at will as contenc!ed by the Corporation but was a lessee for the terms mentioned in le.,e. The appellant and the Corporation made applica- tions for reference under s. 18(1) of the Act. The Additional District Judge held that the price should bo As. -/10/- per sq ft. and that the app,ellant and the Municipal Corporation were entit!OO to equal compensation. The Corpora.lion and the appellant filed appeals to the High Court. The decision of the Addi. District Judge fixing the price of the land As. -/! 01 - per sq, ft was ·affirmed. As regards the dispute regarding apportionment the High Court held that the lease deed having been exempted by the Administrator during the time wher. the Corporation stood superseded was ineffective to convey the leasehold interest to the appellant. However, the appellant was pay- ing the rent "'hich had been accepted for a long time by the Corporation. The're was thus a tenancy by necessary implication. The High Court furt!ler held that the lease was to continue for the period of 30 years mentioned in the deed but there was no valid contract for renewal of lease because the clause relating to that was vague and uncertain. The "'pportionrmnt was made on acturial basis between the appellant and the G Corporation in the ratio of 1038: 962. In .appeal before the C'?'"1 Ifie questions relating to quantum of compensation and the aworti<1nment between th< appellant and the Corporation fell for consideration. H HELD : (1) No lease could be spelt out of ~. deed dated August 31, l 940 for a period of 30 years containing the renewnl clause. If the officer who executed the lease deed had ne power to lease out the property in question the grant of the lease was wholly null and v<>id. , It is true that by the acceptance . of ren~ from the appellant the relationship of }Mdlord 11nc! tenant came mto ex1stell!"'• But that did not show that a lease deed for a periDd of 30 years with a renewal clause had come into existence. [497EJ Since the lease deed was ineffective the lease could be under the pro- visions of section I 06 of the Transfer of Property. Act, only from month 494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1973] l S.C.R. to month because the immovable property had not been Jeas,,d out for A agricultural or manufacturing purpose in which case it would have been from year to year. The;:efore the contention that the· renewal clause was effective and should have been taken. into consiooration. whue mak- ing the apportionment between the appellant and the Corporation could ,not be accepted. (The question wiYother the High Court was right in holding that the period of lease was 30 years was not gone into beoause the Corporation had fjled no appeal against ihat portion of the decision. 8 . [497Hl Dagdu/al v. Municipal Committee, Burhar, (19'60) M.P.L.J. 627 and H. V. Ranan v. G. N. Gopai & Ors. A.l.R. 1961 Mys. 29, leferred to.' <il The value which was fixed by the Addi. District Ju
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.